DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This OA is in response to the amendment filled on 4/17/2026 that has been entered, wherein claims 1-10 are pending and claims 1-3 are withdrawn.
Specification
The objection to the title is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment of 4/17/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 USC 102 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment of 4/17/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 4-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tu et al. (US 2022/0359253 A1) of record.
Regarding claim 4, Tu teaches a method for bonding an electronic component(Fig. 1), comprising:
providing a transfer substrate(710) having a carrying surface(710b) on which the electronic component(720/721, ¶0085) to be bonded is disposed and a non-carrying surface(710a) which is opposite to the carrying surface(710b);
providing a target substrate(740, ¶0021) having a bonded surface and a non-bonded surface which is opposite to the bonded surface;
arranging the carrying surface(710b) of the transfer substrate(710) to face the bonded surface of the target substrate(740, ¶0021);
making the transfer substrate(710) and the target substrate(740, ¶0021) approach each other until the electronic component(720/721, ¶0085) is in contact with the bonded surface of the target substrate(740, ¶0021);
applying a flexible push(140, ¶0021) to the non-carrying surface(710a) of the transfer substrate(710) or to the non-bonded surface of the target substrate(740, ¶0021), wherein the flexible push(140, ¶0021) is in a greater magnitude(Fig. 1D, ¶0060) onto a central portion of the non-carrying surface(710a) or of the non-bonded surface than onto a peripheral portion of the non-carrying surface(710a) or of the non-bonded surface at the start of the flexible push(140, ¶0021) being applied; and
applying an energy beam(L1, ¶0034) to bond the electronic component(720/721, ¶0085) on the bonded surface of the target substrate(740, ¶0021) from the transfer substrate(710).
Regarding claim 5, Tu teaches the method for bonding an electronic component according to claim 4, wherein the flexible push(140, ¶0021) reaches a universal magnitude(Fig. 1F, ¶0065) gradually from the central portion to the peripheral portion of the non-carrying surface(710a) or of the non-bonded surface.
Regarding claim 7, Tu teaches the method for bonding an electronic component according to claim 4, wherein the energy beam(L1, ¶0034) is a laser beam(¶0041).
Regarding claim 8, Tu teaches the method for bonding an electronic component according to claim 4, wherein the electronic component(720/721, ¶0085) is a light-emitting diode(¶0085).
Regarding claim 9, Tu teaches the method for bonding an electronic component according to claim 4, wherein the target substrate(740, ¶0021) is a thin film transistor substrate(¶0045).
Regarding claim 10, Tu teaches a method for manufacturing a light-emitting diode display(Fig. 1, ¶0085), comprising bonding the light-emitting diode(720/721, ¶0085) using the method for bonding an electronic component according to claim 8(please see claim 8 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu et al. (US 2022/0359253 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/01202185 A1) as cited in the IDS of11/7/2023 .
Regarding claim 6, Tu teaches the method for bonding an electronic component according to claim 4, but is not relied on to teach the flexible push(140, ¶0021) is generated by inflating an air bag.
Lee teaches a method for bonding an electronic component(Fig. 4) wherein the flexible push(air, ¶0035) is generated by inflating an air bag(124, ¶0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to modify the method of Tu, so that the flexible push is generated by inflating an air bag, as taught by Lee, so that a void is discharged to the outside of the semiconductor chip and does not remain at the interface between the electronic component and the target substrate, and thus, the bonding reliability between the electronic component and the target substrate may be improved(¶0067).
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2022/0238358 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/01202185 A1) as cited in the IDS of11/7/2023 .
Regarding claim 4, Liao teaches a method for bonding an electronic component(Figs. 9-12), comprising:
providing a transfer substrate(S, ¶0032) having a carrying surface(S1001, ¶0032) on which the electronic component(C, ¶0032) to be bonded is disposed and a non-carrying surface(S1002, ¶0032) which is opposite to the carrying surface(S1001, ¶0032);
providing a target substrate(P, ¶0032) having a bonded surface and a non-bonded surface which is opposite to the bonded surface;
arranging the carrying surface(S1001, ¶0032) of the transfer substrate(S, ¶0032) to face the bonded surface of the target substrate(P, ¶0032);
making the transfer substrate(S, ¶0032) and the target substrate(P, ¶0032) approach each other until the electronic component(C, ¶0032) is in contact(S102, ¶0035) with the bonded surface of the target substrate(P, ¶0032);
applying(S104, ¶0032) a flexible push(gas, ¶0035) to the non-carrying surface(S1002, ¶0032) of the transfer substrate(S, ¶0032) or to the non-bonded surface of the target substrate(P, ¶0032); and
applying an energy beam(laser beam, ¶0036) to bond the electronic component(C, ¶0032) on the bonded surface of the target substrate(P, ¶0032) from the transfer substrate(S, ¶0032).
Liao is not relied on to teach the flexible push(gas, ¶0035) is in a greater magnitude onto a central portion of the non-carrying surface(S1002, ¶0032) or of the non-bonded surface than onto a peripheral portion of the non-carrying surface(S1002, ¶0032) or of the non-bonded surface at the start of the flexible push(gas, ¶0035) being applied.
Lee teaches a method for bonding an electronic component(Fig. 4) wherein the flexible push(air, ¶0035) is in a greater magnitude(please see examiner annotated Fig. 4c, ¶0059) onto a central portion of the non-carrying surface or of the non-bonded surface than onto a peripheral portion of the non-carrying surface or of the non-bonded surface at the start of the flexible push(air, ¶0035) being applied. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to modify the method of Liao, so that the flexible push is in a greater magnitude onto a central portion of the non-carrying surface or of the non-bonded surface than onto a peripheral portion of the non-carrying surface or of the non-bonded surface at the start of the flexible push being applied, as taught by Lee, so that a void is discharged to the outside of the semiconductor chip and does not remain at the interface between the electronic component and the target substrate, and thus, the bonding reliability between the electronic component and the target substrate may be improved(¶0067).
PNG
media_image1.png
536
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Liao teaches the method for bonding an electronic component according to claim 4, but is not relied on to teach the flexible push(gas, ¶0035) reaches a universal magnitude gradually from the central portion to the peripheral portion of the non-carrying surface(S1002, ¶0032) or of the non-bonded surface.
Lee teaches a method for bonding an electronic component(Fig. 4) wherein the flexible push(air, ¶0035) reaches a universal magnitude(Fig. 4E) gradually from the central portion to the peripheral portion of the non-carrying surface or of the non-bonded surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to modify the method of Liao, so that the flexible push reaches a universal magnitude gradually from the central portion to the peripheral portion of the non-carrying surface or of the non-bonded surface, as taught by Lee, so that a void is discharged to the outside of the semiconductor chip and does not remain at the interface between the electronic component and the target substrate, and thus, the bonding reliability between the electronic component and the target substrate may be improved(¶0067).
Regarding claim 6, Liao teaches the method for bonding an electronic component according to claim 4, but is not relied on to teach the flexible push(gas, ¶0035) is generated by inflating an air bag.
Lee teaches a method for bonding an electronic component(Fig. 4) wherein the flexible push(air, ¶0035) is generated by inflating an air bag(124, ¶0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to modify the method of Liao, so that the flexible push is generated by inflating an air bag, as taught by Lee, so that a void is discharged to the outside of the semiconductor chip and does not remain at the interface between the electronic component and the target substrate, and thus, the bonding reliability between the electronic component and the target substrate may be improved(¶0067).
Regarding claim 7, Liao teaches the method for bonding an electronic component according to claim 4, wherein the energy beam(laser beam, ¶0036) is a laser beam(¶0036).
Regarding claim 8, Liao teaches the method for bonding an electronic component according to claim 4, wherein the electronic component(C, ¶0032) is a light-emitting diode(¶0003).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 4 rejection over Tu, Applicant argues Tu fails to teach "a flexible push" and "the flexible push is in a greater magnitude onto a central portion of the non-carrying surface or of the non-bonded surface than onto a peripheral portion of the non-carrying surface or of the non-bonded surface at the start of the flexible push being applied" in claim 4. The flexible push of claim 4 is generated by deformation of the flexible push generator itself, thereby exerting a push force onto the substrate. However, paragraph [0036], lines 11-15 of Tu recites that "the material of the abutting component 140 may be quartz, but the disclosure is not limited thereto. In an embodiment, the material of the abutting component 140 may include sapphire (e.g. , synthetic sapphire) or diamond (e.g. , synthetic diamond )." That is, the material of the abutting component 140 of Tu is a rigid material which cannot form a flexible push.
The examiner respectfully submits that the claim limitation language does not specify the flexible push is generated by deformation of the flexible push generator itself. Nor does the claim limitation require the feature of a flexible material. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the flexible push is generated by deformation of the flexible push generator itself, wherein the flexible push generator is formed of nonridged material ) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues further Tu uses an abutting component 140 of a rigid material that is not deformable to press against a flexible carrier 710 to achieve a pushing effect. The pushing force applied to the flexible carrier 710 is a rigid push, which differs from the flexible push in claim 4 of this application.
The examiner respectfully submits that abutting component 140 is flexible in its movement towards and away from the target substrate. Applicant is encouraged to further define in the claim limitation that the flexible push is formed from a deformable material to differentiate from the flexible push of Tu from that of the claimed invention.
Applicant argues since Tu fails to teach the flexible push in claim 4, Tu also fails to teach "the flexible push is in a greater magnitude onto a central portion of the non-carrying surface or of the non-bonded surface than onto a peripheral portion of the non-carrying surface or of the non-bonded surface at the start of the flexible push being applied" in claim 4.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Fig.1D of Tu illustrates the magnitude of the displacement from the starting position that is caused by the flexible push 140 is greater at the center than at the edge.
Regarding claim 4 rejection over Liao in view of Lee, Applicant argues paragraph [0035] of Liao recites that "referring to FIG . 9 and FIG . 11 , in step S104, the gas with a predetermined pressure may be introduced via the second gas guiding structure 4 of the chip transferring module M2 and be applied to a back side S 1002 of the transferring substrate S." Accordingly, Liao teaches generating a pushing force on the substrate by adjusting the air pressure within the accommodating space, rather than deforming a structure. Therefore, the pushing force disclose in Liao is different from the flexible push in claim 4 of this application.
The examiner respectfully submits that the claim limitation language does not specify the flexible push is generated by deforming a structure. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the flexible push is generated by deforming a structure) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argue referring to FIG. 4C of Lee, Lee uses an air pressure adjuster 133 to inflate the cavity 124, increasing the internal air pressure. This causes the bottom portion 122 of the attachment pad 120 to deform and bulge outward, applying a flexible pushing force to the central area of the semiconductor chip 11. However, to hold the semiconductor chip 11 during transfer, Lee applies a suction force to the peripheral area of the semiconductor chip 11, opposite to the flexible pushing force. In other words, the attachment pad 120 of Lee does not apply a flexible push to the peripheral area of the semiconductor chip 11. Therefore, Lee does not teach the technical feature of claim 4 of this application that "the flexible push is in a greater magnitude onto a central portion of the non-carrying surface or of the non-bonded surface than onto a peripheral portion of the non-carrying surface or of the non-bonded surface at the start of the flexible push being applied."
The examiner respectfully submits that although Lee may teach suction force at a part of a peripheral area of the semiconductor chip, the flexible push(air, ¶0035) of Lee deforms the semiconductor chip 11 from a center portion which protrudes downward with respect to the outer portion thereof(¶0059). Thus Lee teaches the flexible push(air, ¶0035) is in a greater magnitude(please see examiner annotated Fig. 4c, ¶0059) onto a central portion of the non-carrying surface or of the non-bonded surface than onto a peripheral portion of the non-carrying surface or of the non-bonded surface at the start of the flexible push(air, ¶0035) being applied.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA DYKES whose telephone number is (571)270-3161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAURA M DYKES/Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights